Shortly after finishing Monday's post, I discovered that the new issue of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education had turned up in my mailbox. It contained the following item:
Arthur Shapiro is a professor in the Department of Evolution and Ecology at the University of California, Davis. Starting in 1981 and continuing through 2004, he was running a long-term study of the frequency of hybridization and its relation to population density in a particular species of butterfly. The research was undertaken at a ranch in northeastern California. The ranch's owner had no problem with the research.
The owner later sold his ranch, and the new owners intended to convert the fields where the research was undertaken to a different crop. This created some issues about whether the study could continue, and Shapiro wrote to the new owners, on university letterhead, exaplaining that he would survey the new situation in the spring and decide if he wanted to continue the study. He got the following letter in reply:
Dear Dr. Shapiro,
I am writing to let you know that we are ending our agreement that allows you to study the butterflies on our ranches. Until your letter last December, we were not fully aware of your position with the University. We did not understand that you represented the Dept. of Evolution and Ecology. I do not believe that we are of the same conviction as to the creation of the earth. We strongly believe in a literal 6-day creation of earth, by God. That He and He alone sustains all living matter in an orderly fashion. We, as a family, do not support the study of evoution. Because of these differences we would choose that you no longer continue your studies on our property. We hope and pray that through your studies of God's vast creation that you will come to know Him in a real and persoanl way.
Speaks for itself, I'd say.
- Log in to post comments
OW! Smack! Godhead!
No I do not desire to talk to you any further because you are a Godless infidel....have a nice life.
fartttt!
This is out of topic here, so delete it if you want, but I've found a new "philosophical" paper by Dembski and
commented on it on my blog. I think you might find it interesting.
Today's AOL News reports that Noah's Ark has been discovered and is evidently still largely intact. The article also notes that the dimensions of said Ark would roughly be the size of a small aircraft carrier.
Given the constraints on building wooden ships and the problems inherent in trying to build any wooden ship the size of the Ark, I note that more than half of AOL subscribers believe the Deluge story to be literally true and accurate and that almost half believe that this discovery may be the true Ark, by the vote tabulation at this time.
Literalists and their farther out brethern are far more common and far more hostile to science than most people would believe. It is astounding that any rancher would oppose evolution, since the first evolutionist was the first farmer or the first herdsman, but I would suspect that either they do not know what evolution is (YE sentiments make this very likely) or else they are very poor at ranching or they have just begun running a ranch.
This man is talking about his property. He has every right to stop someone from trepassing on his farm. The fact that you disagree with his reason, or consider it foolish, does not change the fact that he was being considerate and well-mannered in his letter. More so, in fact, than Dr. Shapiro, who needlessly tried to humiliate the farmer by making his private communication public.
There are countless stories of Native Americans preventing anthropologists from digging on what they consider sacred grounds. No one makes snide remarks about this.
No one is saying that this person does not have the right to decide if a study is done on his property. No one is saying that he was not polite in his letter.
What is being shown is someone who will not let science be done because of thier religous beliefs. A lot of scientific work is ruined because of it.
The person involved need only feel humilited if you think this reason is foolish.
Plus, at least in this post, their is no name attached to it.
"Plus, at least in this post, their is no name attached to it."
All of Dr. Shapiro's students and colleagues know who wrote this letter, unless he has contracts with several farms, which is unlikely.
In any case, you're missing the big picture. The farmer has property rights, and privacy rights. Dr. Shapiro has no "research rights", at least none to be found in the constitution. I hope Shapiro gets his work done, it seems interesting enough, but the farmer is the only aggrieved party here.
Why is the farmer aggreived? Isn't he getting more publicity for his stand? Isn't he keeping the heathens off his property? Isn't he getting recognition for his beliefs - which he clearly wants to shove in everyone's face? I don't get that he's aggrieved at all.
And sure it's his right... but he's being a damned hypocrite with that last line.
Well, its consistant with the overReligious Right. They do not want to take in any new information. They have their minds made up dont confuse them with the facts. No amount of new information will affect them until it becomes so painfully obvious they are wrong. I am still amazed they want to play in the sciences at all. You would think after the 'Flat Earth' and 'Everything revolves around the Earth' they would learn.
Or perhaps after killing the mongoloid children because they were considered 'of the Devil' they would realize that their middle age views of humanity might need to be updated.
After reading all these articles and comments about how anti-science creationism or ID is, I can't help but conclude how unscientific these opinions are. Creationism and ID are certainly not anti-science, and this can be backed up objectively simply by identifying those scientists that belive in any aspect of creation. It's purely biassed opinion that causes anyone to think otherwise. Proclaiming Creationism as anti-science has little affect on those being honest. It only works for those who are convinced evolution is the truth and anything else should not be tolerated. Creationism is no more or no less anti-science than those who practice and believe in evolution. In fact we could conclude that evolutionists are the ones being anti-science because they base all their conclusions on unprovable assumptions about the past. They can't prove that what they believe is true; afterall science is not about truth, right? All they can do is proclaim that the evidence is well supported by the evidence or not well supported by the evidence. But based on whose opinion? I would argue that it's the opinion of those atheists in power and influence. But science is not based on popular opinion or politics, or is it? As far as the letter to Dr. Shapiro from the farmer, this does not support the myth that Creationists are anti-science as the article suggests. On the contrary, it simply demonstrates that the farmer believes something different about our origins than Dr. Shapiro. From a Creationist perspective, it's the evolutionists that are being anti-science.
Druidbros wrote "Well, its consistant with the overReligious Right. They do not want to take in any new information. They have their minds made up dont confuse them with the facts. No amount of new information will affect them until it becomes so painfully obvious they are wrong."
Strange... I believe the same thing about the underReligious Left.
Druidbros wrote "Or perhaps after killing the mongoloid children because they were considered 'of the Devil' they would realize that their middle age views of humanity might need to be updated."
Or what about the killing by Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao Zedong and Mao Tse-Tung in the name of evolution? Perhaps it's the views of evolutionists that need to be updated.
Jon S: This is too wrong to answer, but I will point out that Mao Zedong and Mao Tse-Tung are the same person.
Understanding evolution and accepting that it is correct is not anti-science. Just because there are two or more possible postions on a topic doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid. You could say that 2+2=5 and that anyone who doesn't accept that is not being open minded and is anti-math, but that doesn't make that statement or postion valid.
As for the letter. The property owner has the final say, it's his land and private property rights seem like a good thing to me. I'm sure it's frustrating to have research interrupted for such a poorly reasoned argument, but that's the way it goes.
You would think, though, that new owners would want the research to continue, so this nasty "theory" of evil-ution could be dispelled by having a burning bush or something talk to the researcher while he was working.
What they were scared of??? If is god will to show that evolution is wrong, why do they stop the researcher??? One of the most valuable characteristic of science is to let other people try to prove u wrong....if u dont let others to try to prove your work is wrong u are anti-science.
Luisjo wrote "What they were scared of??? If is god will to show that evolution is wrong, why do they stop the researcher??? One of the most valuable characteristic of science is to let other people try to prove u wrong....if u dont let others to try to prove your work is wrong u are anti-science."
I don't think they're scared of anything. They're stopping the researcher because they don't buy evolution, and they don't want to support the propaganda that gets disseminated to the public at large, schools and colleges. Furthermore, this is not an example of creationists being anti-science. In fact I'm aware of many instances where evolutionist institutions refuse to publish, or even censor creationist work that provides evidence in favor of creation, or contradicts evolution and long ages. So if that's the definition anti-science, then, logically speaking, evolution is anti-science.
Dom wrote "Jon S: This is too wrong to answer, but I will point out that Mao Zedong and Mao Tse-Tung are the same person."
Yes, I realized that shortly after I made my post and am very embarrassed.
Do those who object to using medical data from Nazi experiments hate science, too? How about those who refuse to cooperate with scientific research that receives U.S. Defense Department funding? Those who refuse to participate in research with those who are on the payroll of the Israeli government? Those who boycott scientific conferences in states that don't recognize sexual preference as a protected category?
(Note to the easily confused: I am not asserting that evolutionists are Nazis, warmongers, Zionists, or heterosexists.)
There are countless stories of Native Americans preventing anthropologists from digging on what they consider sacred grounds. No one makes snide remarks about this.
Kennewick man, anyone?
It's very difficult for an academic to try and do his work in the face of such ignorance and backwardness. The more a society rejects science, logic and reason for religious nonsense, the more isolated and rejected by the rest of the world will it become. I hate to think of where pure science and research will be in 40 years in America if these Bible-thumping nitwits have their way!
I have found in my life that people who fervently believe literally in Creation, ID, and all those religious fairy tales do so because they are stupid, uneducated and ignorant, and cannot think for temselves.
The Bible, which I have read, is a beautiful book in many ways... but it is, when all is said and done, an early attempt by people in an evolving society to codify human behaviour and morals, and is therefore allegorical with very little evidence in historical writings of the day to back up the allegories.
The Genesis story of creation is a beautiful story that has inspired much music and art (think of Aaron Copeland's "In the beginning" - a truly inspirational work of music). But it is still an early attempt by man to try to explain from where the world came, and all its inhabitants - an allegorical story based on not much scientific research, query or knowledge - but based on early man's attempt to explain the universe.
We have to look upon the Genesis story as that, a story that does not have any base in science. Therefore it is really, really ignorant and stupid and backwards to take it literally. People who do so reflect their own ignorance, stupidity and backwardness. Let me give a couple of examples of the non-science in the Genesis creation story:
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. So how could light be separated from darkness when there was no light?!! (Genesis 1:14-19). 1:3-5
Plants are made on the third day BEFORE there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes. (Genesis 1:14-19). 1:11
After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. (Genesis 2:18-20 ) The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while - estimates of the total number of living species generally range from 10 to 100 million. It is likely the actual number is on the order of 13 to 14 million. If Adam named the (13 million) species at a rate of 100 species a day with no holidays, it would have taken him about 357 years to name them all. Way to go Adam. Ridiculous is all I have to say if you believe this literally.
I'm sorry that the Professor was not able to continue his research into butterflies on the farm, due to misguided and ignorant people. The main trouble with ignorance and stupidity that is demonstrated by Bible-thumpers is that you canot reason with it, because people who hold those sort of ignorant beliefs do not have the intelligence with which to reason.
It's a sad day for America, a very sad day. Where would all the gifts that science has given people in the world be today if logic and reason had been supplanted by religious gobbledeygook? I bet those religious Bible-thumping nuts have a few microwave ovens in their homes, eh? Now I wonder who, out of pure science and research and experiment, invented the microwave oven? Oh, I'm sorry - it was God. He stepped down one day and gave it to us. I bet many of those religious-right nuts own and use cell phones. Now I wonder who, with pure science, research, experiment and thought, invented those marvellous little electronic wonders. Ooops.. sorry, God again stepped out of the heavens and delivered it to us. All I can say is - looking at the way those ignorant and stupid religious fundies are grinding down science in America - God help America as it moves inexirably back to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition- that is, if there is a God! Maybe America is all out of luck there.
I have no problem with someone not buying into evolution, but to stop the research because of a belief doesn?t make any sense. Someone might be trying to prove that 2+2=5 and I might think they are nuts, but I'm not going to stop them from doing the research. I don't have a problem with them wasting their time on it. To stop research, on either side of the issue, is ignorant, wrong, and goes against common sense and the very idea of science.
Reply to George of the Jungle: Wow, what a tirade. Was this supposed to be a scientific critique of creationism based on hard facts, or an emotional rant and rave session? Contrary to your own ignorance and backwardness, the more a society accepts Christianity, Jesus and the Word of God, and puts it into practice, the more the rest of the world will respect America. Science and research will make great strides and advances in America once us Bible-thumping nitwits have our way!
To counter your argument, I have found that people who fervently believe in Darwinian evolution and all those religious fairy tales do so because they are naive, ignorant, and hate the fact that they will be held accountable before God. The Bible, which I have read, is more than a beautiful book in many ways, George... it is the Word of God and speaks with authority over all aspects of life. In contrast, the evolutionist's bible, Origin of Species, is, when all is said and done, an early attempt by godless people to deny sin, morals, right and wrong, and truth, and is therefore allegorical with very little evidence in observations of the day to back up the allegories. The Bible is not an early attempt by man to try to explain where the world came from, and is not simply a 'story' that has no base in science. And, contrary to your proclamation, there are many, many brilliant scientists, doctors and engineers that believe in a literal Genesis (See 'In Six Days'. A book of 50 scientists who explain why they believe in a literal creation... including some former atheists and evolutionists). The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, written by men inspired by God. The Bible is all about Jesus, and tells how man fell into sin and how Jesus paid the penalty for that sin and will redeem all those who put their faith and trust in him. And this we know with confidence because the authors of the Bible prophecied, and their prophecies came true.
George writes "Let me give a couple of examples of the non-science in the Genesis creation story: God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. So how could light be separated from darkness when there was no light?!!"
The answer is simple; God was the light source.
George wrote "Plants are made on the third day BEFORE there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes."
Plants would have no problem waiting for the sun, which was created the next day.
George wrote "After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. (Genesis 2:18-20 ) The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while - estimates of the total number of living species generally range from 10 to 100 million. It is likely the actual number is on the order of 13 to 14 million. If Adam named the (13 million) species at a rate of 100 species a day with no holidays, it would have taken him about 357 years to name them all. Way to go Adam. Ridiculous is all I have to say if you believe this literally."
Firstly, we don't know how many original kinds of animals there were at the beginning. 13 million is way off. Second, God brought the animals to Adam. Scripture also indicates Adam only had to name the livestock, birds of the air, and beasts of the field. A more realistic number that would fit the description in Genesis would be about 2,500 animals, which could easily be done in less than a day (Andrew Kulikovsky)
George wrote "I'm sorry that the Professor was not able to continue his research into butterflies on the farm, due to misguided and ignorant people. The main trouble with ignorance and stupidity that is demonstrated by Bible-thumpers is that you canot reason with it, because people who hold those sort of ignorant beliefs do not have the intelligence with which to reason."
I'm sorry that the professor was misguided in his research and had to be confronted by a farmer who stood up for his beliefs. The main trouble with the arrogant, intollerant, elitist attitudes of Darwin-thumpers is that you cannot reason with it, because people who hold to those sort of ignorant beliefs are not concerned about the truth and reason.
George wrote "Where would all the gifts that science has given people in the world be today if logic and reason had been supplanted by religious gobbledeygook?"
I hate to inform you of this, but science is practiced all over the world by scientists of many different religions and anti-religions, regardless of whether or not you think what they believe is gobbledeygook. Science is not the sole domain of atheists; it never was, and never will be.
George wrote "God help America as it moves inexirably back to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition."
God help America as it continues to exhibit moral decay and stray from the values that once made this country great, despite the constitutional rights we have in freedom of religion and free speech.
Joshua wrote "To stop research, on either side of the issue, is ignorant, wrong, and goes against common sense and the very idea of science."
Nonsense. It demonstrates that there are people willing to take a stand for what they believe. The farmer demonstrated his right to own property, free speech, and religion. Many people on this website would be quick to defend one?s right to burn a flag, but would condemn others who demonstrate other constitutional freedoms in the name of 'science'.
The proper saying for this type of discussion is "I'll see it when I believe it", not "I'll believe it when I see it."
When Jon comes into the discussion with a firm fundamentalist belief in god as described literally in the bible, reason and research are immaterial (sic) instead of material. Scientific knowledge is only used to prove the literalist beliefs, but open ended scientific research, such as that about the butterflies is rejected. But it's rejected on religious grounds, not scientific grounds.
The telling question is whether or not Jon is open to any chance of a change of opinion based upon research based scientific evidence. He's not. Despite his claims for science and research improving once we all accept his veiw of god and the bible. He's got a religious agenda, not a scientific agenda, a religious pair of glasses not a scientific pair of glasses.
Science will get along fine without this particular field of butterflies to study. Will our country get along so well with so many people blinded by bias against real science?
When After reading Jon's message, I was stunned. No one can change fundamentalists' minds, but believe or not, natural seletion will have the final say over a long run as it has done so in the millions of years . . . . .
Reply to bmkmd:
Amazing... the response you gave me can also be said about your beliefs about science and the world. Your quote "I'll see it when I believe it", not "I'll believe it when I see it." also applies to your beliefs. Something that is so obvious to creationists (evidence for a young world and evidence contradicting evolution), is amazingly anti-science to evolutionists, even though what they believe themselves is based purely on philosophy, although they can't and won't see it that way. Evidence for creation is presented, but it is opposed, not because of scientific grounds, but because of a biased, anti-religios worldview. You have a religious agenda of your own, but you may not be willing to admit it or acknowledge it, but it can be easily seen by anyone wearing a 'religous pair of glasses', as apposed to a set of evolutionary glasses.
When bmkmd comes into the discussion with a firm belief in evolution as described literally in Origin of Species, reason and research are immaterial (sic) instead of material. Scientific knowledge is only used to prove the literalist evolutionary beliefs, but open ended scientific research, such as evidence for a young earth is rejected. But it's rejected on religious grounds, not scientific grounds.
You see bmkmd, as you pointed out, all this belief about our origins, whether from a supernatural means, or by purely naturalistic means, depends on the glasses you wear, and not on the evidence, because the evidence must be interpreted, and it's ones worldview that will determine how that evidence is interpreted.
The telling question, bmkmd, is whether or not you are open to any chance of a change of opinion based upon research and scientific evidence. You're not. Despite your claims for science and research improving once we all accept your veiw of Darwin and his evolutionary assumptions.
Response to Young: When you say that no one can change a fundamentalist's mind, the same can be said for devout evolutionists... for the most part. Their minds are made up and can't be changed no matter what evidence is presented.
Actually, I'm aware of many former 'staunch' evolutionists that used to mock fundamentalist Christian beliefs and promote evolution, but have since become Christians and now see that what they used to believe was based on a worldview... not science. And now they defend a literal creation. Some are in the book I mentioned previously (In Six Days). I think this is good evidence that to support what I've said about creation and evolution, unless you want to believe those people came down with a 'stupid' gene, while you maintain your 'genious' gene.
My 'genius gene' is spelt correctly.
I enjoyed reading both sides of the arguements that have been going on. As an athiest i have to agree with a lot of George of the Jungles comments especially the worrying trend of christian schools only teaching creationism in America and now in the U.K. This is simply unexceptable as people should be able to make their own minds up on the subject if the christians were not so scared of being proven wrong or losing the "faithful" to science they would teach both in schools rather than indoctranating the pupils into the christian dogma where they will be more pliable to the american drive against the muslim world. Have to say though glad that america brought us in the U.K. on board in the fight against terrorism as we have 30 years experiance in fighting the I.R.A. who were funded for the last 30 years by ...wait for it ...America! anyway sorry i digress. Back to the subject of creationism Jon S says that a more realistic amount of animals in genisis was about 2500 then how did all the other animals come into being was that because they changed into other species through evolution? We know from science that the world is billions of years old not the 5000 or whatever years that the creationism myth would suggest so to take the bible literally is not the correct idea would it not be better to take it as a guide to what the early peoples of the earth saw as how the earth was created. If we take the Big Bang as the start of the universe what came before that? what is to say it was not God deciding to create it with a single thought and then creating the planets and the stars which are created through gravity "perhaps gravity being the thought of God" and then the dinosaurs realising he got it wrong and they weren't in his image so destroying them all and creating the human population after he decided that the neanderthals were not quite right and destroying them too not showing himself to anyone but the Jews creating lots of other gods for all the other early tribes to worship deciding to send the christians and the muslims off in two different directions after sharing a common ancestry, happening to make the romans the most powerful empire just at the right time to spread christianity to the world, split it into catholic protestant and other ways of worshiping the same god as well as jewish and make all these people believing in the same god hating each other well whats not to believe seems like a perfectly good masterplan to me!! thats my opinion i may well be very wrong and burn in hell but at least i was given the chance to form that opinion from being given all the facts something denied millions of others i dont believe in god but i dont have a problem with those that do you are welcome to disagree with me just dont be scared to give your children the chance to learn both sides and decide their own path maybe their faith will be strong enough to see them through?
Im not sure exactly how old you guys are. but try asking some of the students in school. they will tell you that evolution is how we came to be.. and why is this??? because that is all that we are taught in schools... so how is it that we creationists are being called Biased??? the bible in a few words to me, means God is the almighty saviour and someone wants me to believe otherwise. and im not talking about evolutionists im talking about the devil. if the devil went around killing people and slaughtering man HIMSELF we would truly know there is a God because the bible (word of God) clearly *WANRS* us about him,("whoa be unto the inhabitants of the earth" - we are the inhabitants of the earth if you didnt no...) yet no one seems to mention anything of him??? if i wasnt taught Godly ways, right from wrong, i would go to school my whole life BELIEVING in evolution. im stil in school and to this day that is all that is being showed. perhaps maybe we'll learn when all these kids grow up with drug problems, girls and guys sleeping around, violence, pervertion, rape etc. these things have ben around for MENY years i am aware. but if evolution is true than whos to say whats right and wats wrong??? why does it matter??? things have been happening this way for "billions of years" havnt they?? not all of us are bad mind you. some of us were taught better and know better. i dont need to back my arguement up with "scientific" evidence because hitler himself is evidence of what a strong beliefe in false teachings such as "evolution" can bring about. and if you want more evidence other then "scientific" evidence look at America, President Bush, THE CIA and the Middle East. no questions asked that what is happening right now is what Daniel and john the prophets said (from god) would happen. Nastradomus had prophecies of this to and in his quatrians he also gives thanks to the almighty God who has given him his gifts. so why ask for more scientific evidence? how obvious does it have to be. if you reely think that there is nothing wrong with evolution ( NOT SCIENCE) i recommend that you research the New World Order--full of the meny evolutionists who see the world as a form of natural selection and claim to want to reduce the earth population from roughly 6 billion, to half a billion. perhaps not all evolutionsists are bad people. but the philosophy does speak for itself now.
call me a fundamentalist if you want but creationists them selves know what they are up against. besides if evolution is true then we men and women who originate from Africa are more superior to the white folks because we are more ape-like due to our skin complection and our geography and apperently we evolve from apes... even tho know one has ever found the missing ape link yet!!. there is no EVIDENT proof that we humans come from something none-human. none what so ever, only theories. If Godly teachings (not religion because some religions hold false prophets behind them! NOT GOD.) are to be elminated from society, then we might aswell say goodbye to the very things that we descent human beings stand for; Marriage, Love, careing, freedom, unique complexity etc. i Think Adam was the smartest man to ever have lived because it was him who was there after creation who spoke with God and as the generations grew from adam and eve, sin grew aswell as all the knowledge of how this world came to be. Adam and Eve choosing to ete from the tree is an exact symbolism of humanity NOW days. witht the exception of the devil who decieved eve. both adam and eve ate from the tree. meaning they both chose the life that came afterwards. isnt that wats happening right now? God allowed us to choose back in the garden of eden and hes allowing us to choose now. just because there are consequences does not mean god wanted it to happen or it is gods fault. my conclusion to this whole debate is that evolution is a rediculous enough theorie, believe it if you want you dont need to convince creationists that gods word is true mayeb you need to convince your self that evolution is true?
Ps. i am aware that this is more a rant then scientifical. This is directed more towards "george of the jungle" who had a rant of his own but was countered ever so greatly by John S (couldnt have put a responce in better words than that). I also dont care about my spelling lol